Governments can name and shame food firms, rules ECJ
The owner of a former Bavarian game meat company Berger Wild, had sued the Bavarian government over warnings issued over its products. The company claimed this caused significant commercial damage, alleging “it had suffered considerable losses as a result.” It subsequently went insolvent. And, the company argued the warning was unnecessary anyway, saying that while its game meat might have smelt a little odd (“exhibit sensory anomalies”, said an ECJ note), “there was no risk to health”.
Berger proposed it should issue a ‘product warning’, inviting its customers to exchange the game products concerned. However, the Bavaria consumer protection ministry disagreed and recalled the game products, with an announcement that they “gave off a rancid, nauseous, musty or acidic smell, and that, in certain cases, the putrefaction process had already started”, as per conclusions reached by the Passau Veterinary Office.
In the legal proceedings that followed, the German courts referred the case to the ECJ for an advisory ruling, because it was unclear whether European Union (EU) law allowed public warnings identifying a supplier where meat was deemed unfit for humans, even when the actual safety risk was unclear.
The ECJ has now ruled that the EU food safety regulation (EC) No 178/2002 does allow such statements to be released, protecting consumer protection agencies against subsequent legal action. It added that “unsafe” food included products that are “food which is unacceptable for human consumption according to its intended use, for reasons of contamination, or through putrefaction, deterioration or decay”.
In such a case, it said, the regulation allows “information issued to the public relating to food… to mention the name of the food or the name or trade name of the food manufacturer, processor or distributor”.
